Associated Press
U.S. Senate hopefuls Richard Mourdock (R) and Joe Donnelly (D) in Indiana.
At first blush, news about the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reserving air time in a competitive race may seem routine, but the news out of Indiana yesterday reinforced a larger truth.
The DSCC's independent expenditure is re-upping its buy in Indiana, with another $439,000 in air time booked from Oct. 2 through Oct. 8, two media tracking sources tell me.
The NRSC's independent arm followed by reserving fresh time of its own for the same week. It's a mark of how competitive the race in Indiana is now seen, and in which both sides in the fight between Democrat Joe Donnelly and Republican Richard Mourdock.
Two weeks ago, Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS invested another $1 million in support of Richard Mourdock, which coincided with news that the National Republican Senatorial Campaign was making another ad buy of its own. Now it's Democrats reserving time in the Hoosier state, and three Democratic super PACs are launching a $1 million ad campaign of their own.
Again, on the surface, this hardly seems noteworthy -- a competitive Senate race is drawing major investments from both sides. But what's important is what's often left unsaid: we're talking about Sen. Dick Lugar's (R) seat, which a year ago, looked like one of the least competitive races of 2012.
Lugar, a long-time incumbent, would have cruised to an easy re-election victory, and his party and its allies could have used their resources in other contests. But the Republican Party's right-wing base decided Lugar was insufficiently extreme, and GOP voters backed Mourdock over Lugar in a primary.
In other words, the Republican base has proven to be a Democratic ally -- Dems have a legitimate chance at flipping this seat from "red" to "blue," precisely because GOP voters nominated an extremist challenger over a safe incumbent. And even if Mourdock prevails, it's forced Republicans to invest heavily in a state they wouldn't have had to worry about were it not for the primary.
Republicans need a net gain of four seats to win a Senate majority this election season. Thanks in part to the choices of the GOP base in Indiana and Missouri, Democrats seem increasingly optimistic. It happened in 2010 -- in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado -- and it's now it's happening again.
Leave a Comment:
.
Like Major Frank Burns said:
Better Dead than Red.
The Conservative Red has replaced the Commie Red in being the danger to our country.
.
.
The metaphor of Warfare and the temporary suspension of diplomatic civility is apt. Korea and the nuclear option is also descriptive of the layers of this struggle.
This is not about Dems attaining a supermajority or about Dems losing the Senate. Neither will happen in 2012. The reality is there will be confirmation vote for a Supreme Court justice in the next 4 years and the GOP will block any and all pro Roe candidates. It will be World War III in the Senate.
Unless the GOP comes to its senses about comity and governance, this means the 60 vote rule of the Senate is doomed and this war will go nuclear. That will happen regardless how many votes Murray and the DSCC win. They will have fought the good fight but it appears to me that the only thing we can control is how how the rules are to be jettisoned, not whether they will be. Even for lawmakers who view that as unnecessarily pessimistic, we must prepare and discuss that contingency.
My view is that Dems must jettison the rules, but do so under the metaphor of what happens to the rules of civilization during wartime. Reaching diplomatic compromise fails and so you have war. You fight it brutally and fight it completely so that the other understands they are vanquished and that it was much more in their interests to adhere to the rules of moderation and comity. At that point, you disarm and return to the rules of comity and moderation. The Senate rules are restored, and the Plutocracy is defeated in its objective to destroy US institutions against the excesses of majoritarianism.
The plutocracy would benefit from a permanent jettisoning of the 60 vote supermajority and other Senate rules because it is much simpler for them to engineer simple majorities than super-majorities. The conservatives recognized in 2005 that if given the choice, the Senate would vote for extremists rather than give up on that rule.
That is how Justice Roberts won his 60 votes. That's how we got Citizen's United, and that is how affirmative action and a gamut of progressive legislation dating back 80 years could be dismantled.
We democrats are in denial of reality. Senate rules have the purpose of forcing the majority to moderate its proposals. Dems have not recognized that they are the only party that believes in this now empty promise. They have been gamed by the conservatives. Bush II was not willing to moderate his proposals, and neither does the current GOP leadership have any interest in moderation.
The GOP is perfectly honest- they view themselves as fighting an all out war. As is often observed by progressives- it is a war in which only one side is fighting.
Until conservatives are willing to return to the principles of governance and comity, and accept the premise of moderation, the conservatives must engaged by progressives in a tit for tat in all out hyper partisan war.
The meme of the GOP is that progressives accommodate extremists rather than confront them. Conservatives bet that the Dems would passively accept the politicizing of the bureaucracy and the judiciary rather than give up on peaceful norms of political behavior embodied in the Senate rules.
They were correct. Our response today is to declare war on their extremism and with it, the temporary suspension of those peaceful norms.
We must temporarily normal rules in the Senate including the supermajority rule as a consequence of their misbehavior.
How do you propose to jettison the 60 vote rule?
The Dems will have to change the rules for filibusters and holds in the new session in January. John and I have extensively discussed this in another thread that was posted yesterday. Republicans are not going to allow the Dems to appoint judges to the federal courts. There are far more holds, a record number, on nominations since Obama took office. A Supreme Court vacancy would trigger a major battle in the Senate because Republicans are not going to allow a conservative judge be replaced with a moderate, let alone a liberal judge. If Ruth Ginsburg who is liberal is replaced, the Republicans are going to try to force Obama to nominate someone who is less liberal than the current judge. This is why Dems need to permanently abolish or severely restrict filibusters and holds. Republicans are going to continue to hold up any appointments because they are engaging in "scorched earth" warfare.
John, I understand your point, and don't take this the wrong way - but what drugs are you taking or which ones do you want, I'll get them for you cheaply?
Soffer,
As I described yesterday, Reid, Schumer and Durbin announce to the GOP leadership that as a consequence of their actions, they are abdicating control of the leadership to Patty Murray. Should they wish to continue their "my way or the highway" strategy of opposing moderate proposals and nominees for commissions and the judiciary, then Murray will be free to engage in full use of the constitutional option to ram through immoderately progressive candidates and measures using the full powers of the majority.
The ball would be in their court and can be tested far in advance of Ginsbergs retirement. Their choice will be evident in the first judicial nominees. Then Murray goes nuclear, and Obama starts nominating not moderate compromise candidates, but those that are strong advocates of consumer, labor and minority rights.
Let the Right wing howl. Let the lobbyists see the consequences of their gaming of the system as their cherished programs are laid waste to because they no longer have the power of Senators in the minority to block these actions.
Total war. Make them recognize the consequences of their abandonment of moderation in governance.
Zora- they are the same drugs that made me to make a sizable donation to Obama immediately after learning of his Springfield announcement of his run for president. The same drugs that caused me to make a similar donation to Warren's exploratory committee before she announce her run.
Somewhere along the line progressives came to believe that fighting evils in politics was akin to Don Quixote tilting at windmills. That sort of trendy cynicism is deeply corrosive.
One problem, John: the Rules of the Senate are approved at the start of each Congress. It's really the only window when they can be changed by a simple majority.
That means that there's no practical way to respond if the Minority does renege on the deal -- at least until the next election, which being an out-year with more Democrat than Republican seats up might sound to the Minority as being worth taking the chance.
It could be done that way, but much better if the mobilization is done prior, ample warning is given, and the GOP has plenty of deliberative time to consider whether they will persist.
The leader can use the so called nuclear option (or "constitutional" option) to suspend rules at any time. As Mike noted yesterday, it there is an unwritten rule against doing that. Nonetheless, Frist threatened it in 2005, and Reid used it in a minor way in 2011 to block McConnell's attempt to scuttle a measure enjoying supermajority on China by adding unrelated dilatory amendments.
In a war, there is no adherence to unwritten rules. The GOP would threaten to shut down the Senate as the Dems threatened Frist with in 2005. Frist understood that the Dem counter-threat was empty. Majority vote on rule suspension would insure that Murray could ram through anything allowed by the constitution the Democrats wanted with a half empty Senate.
The Dems need only vote against continuing Senate rules into the next session. This would be a signal to the Republicans that there will be changes in the rules. The Republicans may try to negotiate an agreement before the new session, but there is no basis for trusting them. Since they engaged in scorched earth during this term, there is no assurance they will live up to any agreement. I truly believe Dems need to make the major step to abolish filibusters and holds. Doing this on a piecemeal basis and chipping away at the procedures is going to still leave leeway for a party to engage in more obstructions. Ending the filibusters and holds will send a shockwave through the Republicans and they will realize that Dems are not afraid of making these major historical changes. The shock would sober up some of these radicals.
I would add that when the Dems kept control of the Senate after 2010 elections, there was a push to change the rules. In exchange for not making significant changes, McConnell made a gentlemen's agreement with Reid that there would be fewer filibusters. The Republicans violated the agreement and that is why Harry Reid stated he regretted not making the changes in procedures that some Dems wanted. There is no reason to trust another gentlemen's agreement with the Republicans.
I agree the time for trust and believe in good faith of the conservatives is over.
Our differences are minor- I want reversibility- if there is some other way to achieve this, great. The way I propose seems to me has this advantage over a vote at the opening in January which would formalize the suspension in a pre-emptive way. I want a clear narrative so that the rules can be resumed, and the principles they protect not be permanently damaged by their temporary absence during the "war". The GOP must make the first move and we make it clear we do so only after provocation and with great reluctance. But then we are balls to the wall brutal in the application of power to ram through our most progressive candidates into the judiciary and onto regulatory commissions.
I believe the Senate rules are essentially good if both sides agree to the rationale for their existence. I think the GOP can be persuaded to return to moderation. For this reason,
I should amend an impression I created in my opening note- the DSCC aggressively going after seats is not pointless, nor should it be viewed as a merely a symbolic gesture of fighting the good fight. Having one to 4 more Dem Senators delivers a more comfortable insurance policy for the leader to prevent a Gang of 14 situation where a group of Senators can block the nuclear option.
I don't see the point in having reversibility. The Republicans are not going to return to moderation because their base is demanding the obstruction. It is time to end the egregious procedural devices that are used to thwart the democratic process.
That may be true for the next 2 to 4 years. I am just not so eager to trash a tradition built up over the past 200 years. Perhaps you don't agree the Senate rules have any value (in a healthy system) of protecting against the tyranny of majoritarianism?
There is a dunning and political brinksmanship aspect to temporary suspensions that you are missing. Whether or not the 60 vote rule will be suspended or not is a calculation that the big money lobbyists will have to make on each measures and appointment they are interested in. If they become convinced that it is counterproductive to their interests to force Murray to suspend the 60 vote rule, then they will urge their Senator pawns to agree to more compromises.
This is not about training the electorate, it is about training the monied interests. The monied interests know how to get the Faux News machine to explain to the lunatics how returning to moderation is a good thing.
The point of war is to end it, and end it with a full restoration of democratic norms.
I personally don't want permanent war with the conservatives, and I don't want the permanent dominance of one party in US politics that would be required if we engaged in such a permanent war. Let's not lose site of the fact the plutocrats really want the Senate rules to fall, and fall permanently. Plutocrats love the idea of monopolies of power because of their confidence in their ability to corrupt whichever party attains it.
Just because a tradition exists for 200 years does not mean we need to maintain it. It is time for the Senate to change the way it operates because it is dysfunctional to the point of paralysis. The remedies for tyranny of the majority are discourse, negotiations and elections.
The filibuster has a long and glorious history. It's been an essential tool for preserving the rights of the Minority when a misguided Majority sets out to violate our most basic values. Without it, for instance, it wouldn't have been possible for Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation for more than a decade.
Har dee har. It's not just 200 years old. Let's also recall Caesar faced fillibusters and had a lot of very real progress in mind that did a lot of good from Rome. He correctly noted that corrupt Senators were blocking him- slowing his reforms for the empire. We turn to the authoritarian during the days of inaction and chaos.
What a coincidence. Just what the plutocrats are eager for.
Obama, Dodd, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Biden, and Baucus have a rebuttal for that point of view (youtube)
There is no question there has been a long debate on the value of reaching consensus with those of opposing viewpoints. Hamilton opposed fillibusters. Caesar hated Cato the Elder for his use of it to check his power. Members of parliament used it to block the British from tyrannical actions against the Irish.
Progress is slower and more ponderous. Hamilton wrote ""every political establishment in which this [supermajority] principal has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder." We flatter ourselves that we in the 21st century are so much more divided than the sectarian colonies of the founding fathers. It is nonsense.
I advocate a full on partisan war with the right wing, but at the end of it, I hope we sit down again as Dodd remarked on, and hammer out our differences.
That is what democracy is about.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
.
Usually the problem with that is when the two enemies dispose of the common enemy the two enemies turn on each other.
Connie Red turning on their own party makes this highly unusual, we don't have to support either one to watch Connie Red rip their party apart.
Right now Connie Red, the TeaBagger, is suckling on the Republican teat and controls the Reps by biting the nipple.
The Reps have to figure out they either write that nipple off n matter the pain, or allow those suckling at and biting their teat to force the Party into ruin.
.
Misquote. That's supposed to be, "The enema of my enemy is my friend."
It's like how World War II, while damned hard, was an inevitable win, given that our opponents were Hitler and the Nazis and the Japanese militarists, who all proved themselves to be morons. The American Al Qaeda (that being the Arabic word for "the base") is equally moronic. Dangerous if you don't keep your eye on them, but ultimately too stupid to be really competitive.
Al Qaeda has learned all they have to do is make minor attacks and the Hysteria of the American Public will do the rest.
Looked at objectively September 11 2001 was nothing more than a Bitch Smack. Instead of keeping our heads the American allowed histrionics to rule.
After Styevens was murdered in Lybia we saw a little of the same, that our reaction causes far more damage than the attack itself.
It's US who are OUR OWN worst enemy.
.
Democrats shouldn't count on Missouri just yet. A lot of national Democrats seem to think a McCaskill win is in the bag. The Republicans will quietly shove money into the race and Akin back in play.
What is the standard internet shorthand for:
<rubbing hands together and cackling with glee> ?
Yeah, that.
Watching the The Republican Party deal with The Tea Party movement. Reminds me of watching the Alien movies being played out in real time. The GOP is the Colonial Marines/ Company, trying to contain the Tea Party/Xenomarphs, who is an uncontrollable entity itself. And ends up devouring them in the most violent way possible.
The GOP establishment allowed this conservative movement to grow within their party. Coddle and nurtured it, with the sole intent of being able to control it. But the one day it burst violently from their chest. And they are all running around wondering how they contain it, will thinking "Oh God, we're f*cked."
Didn't Mourdock, the T.P.er darling have to moderate? Won't he lose brownie points with T.P. ers if they haven't given up already from being played by corporate "masters of the universe"?
Also, the Libertarian may be getting a considerable share of votes.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/171597541.html?refer=y
Before we start rubbing our hands together in glee, just remember it's not in the bag yet - moderate GOP and Independent voters might stay home. And while Akin is as stoopid and ignorant as they come - there are speeple that support him; and Missouri has definitely gotten redder so Mccaskill may be to "librul" for others.
Definitely should not assume anything based on polls. One reason I dislike polls is some folks are influenced to think their vote wouldn't matter, but I say bs… every vote matters. I just wish people has more interest and time for informing themselves properly.
Even reporting results while polls are open dissuade some folks from voting. My advice is vote and people get informed on issues and parties.
I was registering voters and some young folks mistook "American Independent" party for Independent. Good news, I had a swarm of young folks asking questions and filling forms, but I could not tell some of them in time that American Independent is not Independent, it is right wing anti LGBTQ. I truly doubt they wanted to become members of that party. These were first timers at Junior College.
We have lots of people trying to deceive and that is just a shame. If folks are not able to say what they stand for and need to deceive, that is truly sad. I'm sure A.I. party knew their having Independent in their name would deceive some folks. There are probably many atheists signing up for AI, when the name God invoked in their anti gay and other religiously based (which one?) platform which would outlaw abortion and civil rights while claiming liberty.
Register to vote and other information for your State Secretary of State, here's CA's. http://www.sos.ca.gov/ You can search Secretary of State and look for your state's website.
Here in
The Mississippi of the MidwestIndiana, do not give the teabaggers all of the credit for Mourdock getting the repuke nomination. I know of quite a few democrats who voted to get the teapuke on the ballot as an opportunity to get a (pseudo)democrat elected to the senate.Indiana is NOT a closed primary system and voters can vote in either primary. I, for one, took a repuke ballot and voted against Lugar for his refusal to be Dick Lugar since Obama was elected. Plus, voting in the repuke primary provided the opportunity to vote AGAINST Mike 'the 2nd stupidest person on the face of the earth' Pence twice this year.
I am from Donnelly's district. I can honestly say he is a flawed candidate who is just plain bad at retail politics. Richard Lugar was the only Republican I have ever voted for...
However, that being said: Mourdock is alienating very conservative voters (like my folks--who WILL be voting for Romney in the Fall). Donnelly only has to appear moderate in this race to win because Mourdock's mouth (like Akin -- oh and I will wait for the Republican 'long knives' ads that McKaskill's people are waiting to run to really turn that race...) will get him in trouble.
Like it or not, Democrat's in these swing states are really pounding on their ability to compromise and be 'centrist' ...which is a key thing most pundits have overlooked in their analysis. If my memory serves me, in a poll that Steve published this past spring discussing the popularity of Congress ...the majority opinion was that people of both parties wanted compromise. But this was even higher in so-called 'independents.'
I really hope that Donnelly wins this thing (and very glad that the free market is forcing the Republicans to defend conservative seats)..but moreover as I have kept explaining to my parents...the Republican party has pushed immensely qualified statesman like Lugar out in the name of some weird tea-party guy who keeps saying dumb stuff.
So even for my father, a guy who has not voted for a Democrat for national office since before my birth (I am 30+), Mourdock is too far and people will punish the party for what they did to Lugar.
At least that is how I see it...haha.
I'm in Indianna and the interesting thing is there are lots of banners and yard signs for libertarian candidates and I think I have seen all of one for Romney and none for any senate candidate at all. I would put out one for Obama but I think they would burn down my house.
Rachel, please address your colleague, David Gregory's blatant disregard for facts, most recently the egregious misquote of Obama on terrorism. The absence of this discussion on MSNBC's nightly shows is glaring. His partisanship splashes mud on you all.
and he sucked , I mean really sucked on moderating the Warren /Scott Debate. He is a partisan hack and he shows who's team he is on on a regular basis.
They need to fire Gregory, like they did Olbermann!! He sucks! He isn't and will never be a "Tim Russert".
sorry, posted twice
To be fair, while the GOP base has made an otherwise noncompetitive race competitive and thus have had to sink resources into it, the Democrats have also had to sink resources into it which they otherwise would not have. That is to say, this is no a guaranteed good thing for the Dems, it's only good if they win, which they now have a better chance at. On the flip side, we also have a better chance of having another extreme conservative in Washington. If we win it's a big victory but if we lose it's a big loss, that's true from either side of the isle. Just saying
oops.
Not to get too simplistic but it seems to me that a quick review of the Congressional record since 2010 would awaken most people to the complete absurdity of letting any republican incumbent stay in office. Of course if you must go vote for a republican then at least avoid the more ignorant tea party picks.
(Any woman or minority that votes republican at any level must be into S&M)
Ayuh! Can't argue with that, Paul S. Campbell. A vote for any Republican is a rebuke of common sense and a slap in your own face. A vote for Tea-bagger is a shotgun blast to your own knee-caps. Not knowing what the price of party affiliation means shows mental instability rather than just plain ignorance.
Every time I see Mourdock's picture I reflexively think of Mr. Haney, the lovable-but-deeply-crooked con man from the old Green Acres teevee show.
And that's unfair, because Mourdock isn't really loveable at all.
Obama won this tonight on substance. Everybody in America knows Romney lied about everything, and the president made his case. He treated us like adults. We the people who are hurting appreciated that and the programs he's put in place. Romney was the bully we've come to know, and parse his words and find nothing. You all are talking about process and style and who was aggressive. I'm frankly losing all respect. One suggestion though, you need to listen to Sharpton and O'Donnell.